Question: Why does Team Rocket keep trying to steal Ash's Pikachu?
lionhead
17th Jan 2020
Pokemon (1998)
Answer: A quick google brings up a ton of results ranging from keeping Jesse, James and Meowth busy to Pikachu having extra powers. Feel free to read more from this article that provides many detailed answers https://anime.stackexchange.com/questions/23383/why-does-team-rocket-always-try-to-catch-pikachu.
Their goal is basically to capture pikachu so they can present him to their boss. Now I sort of have a problem with that because would their boss want pikachu?
A pikachu is rare.
You really need to be more specific.
No I don't.
Ash's pikachu has more power as a pikachu than a Raichu (his evolved form) as such, this particular Pikachu is of interest to Team Rocket (as stated on the link) However, Rockets reason for NEEDING a Pikachu with all that extra power is unknown.
Team rocket seeks rare valuable, and powerful pokemon. Their objective is to steal rare, valuable, and powerful pokemon, and bring them to their boss so he can use them to take over the world. Pikachu is a rare, valuable, and pokemon. Of course in my opinion, if team rocket managed to steal pikachu and give him to their boss, it would probably make sense for him to sell pikachu for a high price because there would be no way pikachu would ever obey him.
10th Jan 2020
Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker (2019)
Other mistake: The Millennium Falcon crash lands on Kef Bir, leaving a long trail of destruction, supposedly because the landing gear is malfunctioning. However, the Falcon has always had vertical takeoff capability, so even if the landing struts were damaged, there would be no reason for this type of crash landing.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Since so many things always break down on the ship it's possible the vertical landing capabilities were malfunctioning at that time.
However, the characters specifically mention the malfunctioning landing gear as the reason for the crash landing.
Exactly, they needed the landing gear to land but it malfunctioned, resulting in a crash.
If the vertical landing capabilities were malfunctioning then they wouldn't be able to take off, as they are the same things that help keep the Falcon level in atmosphere and control its yaw and wake in space and also what gives it vertical lift at the point of liftoff. Also, before you suggest it, how would they repair it when they can't even reach them because the ship is sitting on them and buried in sand. Also, the exit to the ship is a ramp underneath the ship, how did they get out?
I never said they had to repair it after crashing. I just said it malfunctioned at that time. Perhaps it was a software issue. As for the specifics on the Falcon's capabilities and exits, same guesswork. I'm sure you can exit the Falcon at other places than just the belly.
A plausible explanation but highly unlikely as it would be a one way trip. The damage caused by a high speed landing and a hard one at that would make the falcon unusable for space flight, the underbelly gun would be ripped off for starters and possible damage to the gunner's window as well and damage to the Hull. Same situation in the force awakens on Starkiller base and in solo. These problems are never addressed or explained but I guess this is the magic of the movies.
14th Jan 2020
Men in Black 3 (2012)
Factual error: When Boris jumps out of Lunar-Max, you can see a complete Apollo Lunar-Module (LM). The LM consists of a Descent Stage and an Ascent Stage. We can see both, obviously the Ascent Stage was never used. That doesn't make any sense, because the Apollo Astronauts need to use/"consume" (climb in and "fly" away) the Ascent Stage to leave the moon.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: It could just be a copy of the original. For all we know the lunar landing was staged in this world.
This is far too much of a stretch to be a valid correction. What reason would there be to put a copy there? Also, the Apollo 11 mission to the moon absolutely having to happen is literally a plot point.
The men in black have shown to use alien technology for many of the things they do. This could include the Lunar-Max prison. I agree the lunar landing is a plot point and thus probably true, but why not make a replica in front of the prison as a monument? It doesn't have to be built right next to the site of the first lunar landing. Seems a bit silly to me.
Remember, one of the site's rules is "don't just try to think of an excuse" when correcting entries. Nothing in the film suggests it's a monument, therefore suggesting it's one to try and correct the entry is not valid.
I look at if it's plausible. I guessed since in this universe humans have access to advanced technology the moon landing seems to be more of a coverup for something secret or simply a staged thing. I think this because in MIB 1 they show the world expo observatory towers were in fact real spaceships and they had been there since 1964, so they already had spaceships before ever going to the moon. Again, though, its not relevant to the mistake. It's also obvious with the prison on the moon that they have been there multiple times and thus changed a lot. Building the prison in front of the landing site is again a bit strange so therefor I think it's just a replica, to show visitors. It's not impossible so it can hardly be called a mistake, just something that isn't explained. I'm not making excuses, there may not be actual evidence that it is a replica, but there is no evidence it is the real landing module either.
I don't understand how the Men in Black using alien technology has anything to do with this entry. Regardless, nothing in the film suggests that the capsule is a monument. It's even roped off, much like museums often rope off actual artifacts.
5th Jun 2019
Avengers: Endgame (2019)
Question: How did Steve return the soul stone?
Answer: As the guardian of the Soul Stone, the Red Skull presumably just showed Steve the spot where he needed to return it. As for how Steve got to Vormir in the first place, he could have either borrowed a spaceship from Asgard or had Heimdall teleport him there via the Bifrost after returning the Reality Stone.
Asgard doesn't exist at the time Steve would return the stone.
It did when they took it so its still there when he brings it back. It's shortly before the dark elves attack.
Yes it does. Clint, Natasha, Rhodey and Nebula all traveled to Morag in 2014 when Quill took the Power Stone, at which point Clint and Natasha took the Guardians' ship and traveled to Vormir to retrieve the Soul Stone. Steve can travel to Asgard in 2014 and ask Heimdall to teleport him to both of those planets. Asgard wasn't destroyed until just before the events of Infinity War.
26th Oct 2009
The Matrix (1999)
Question: Morpheus says the "one" was born inside the matrix in film 1. What happens if you're born there? This seems like a flaw in the matrix. How can millions of people live in it for hundreds of years and not reproduce? The matrix is their mind world; if they reproduce there, does the mother get pregnant and have her baby in the real world even though she has no idea she's there? How can you be born inside the matrix? I don't understand.
Chosen answer: None of the people jacked into the Matrix actually get pregnant. It's likely their bodies experience some of the "symptoms" of pregnancy. That's a real world phenomenon: a woman who sincerely thinks she is pregnant, or very strongly wishes to be pregnant, will start producing the same hormones and undergo the physical changes involved with pregnancy, up to a point. When someone becomes pregnant within the Matrix, another artifically grown human baby is jacked in and "assigned" to be their baby. The original "One" who was born inside the Matrix was like Sati in Matrix: Revolutions. The result of two programs, which were written outside the Matrix and then inserted into it, using bits of their own code to create an entirely new program within the Matrix. This individual had unique powers, having been "born" inside the Matrix rather than inserted into it, and woke up the first humans. The cycle perpetuated from there.
I wondered about this too now I watched it again. Aren't the babies supposed to be actual offspring? I mean that's the poit of the fields of humans batteries, to make more and more right? But in order to do that they'd have to taken semen from the right man and artificially inseminate the right woman and then take the baby away and grow it seperately. But that would mean the baby growing inside the woman's belly in the matrix isn't real, so when does it become real? Do they simulate the birth too and then replace the fake baby with the jacked in baby that was grown seperately? That would make you wonder about many things. Or me in any case. It's a problem with that system.
30th Dec 2019
Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (2001)
Question: If Harry's relatives hate him, then why are they against him going to Hogwarts to study magic? Why wouldn't they be excited to be rid of him most of the time?
Answer: Because they know of his wizard heritage and they hate it. They think he and his parents were freaks.
Good answer, but I'd add they also knew it was something Harry would very much want, and they would always deny him simply to be as mean-spirited as possible.
Not to mention one of Vernon and Petunia's overriding motivations is to appear normal to their neighbors, and the more magic Harry knows, the less likely they are to achieve that. It could presumably also be dangerous for them, as future books/movies confirm.
1. They were constantly being barraged with letters from Hogwarts in an increasingly disruptive manner. Eventually, this would be noticed as something weird by their neighbors, which is something they REALLY don't want: anyone to know about Petunia's magical relations. 2. They were flat out threatened by Hagrid and terrified on both him and Dumbledore Better to let him go there then have to spend their entire lives on the run without it even working.
They were against it long before the barrage of letters or Hagrid showing up. They knew about the school, Petunia's sister went there and she told Vernon. They don't want to seem weird to the neighbors in general, they aren't afraid people around them will think they have a wizard in their family because nobody believes in wizards.
29th Dec 2019
Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (2002)
Question: During the arena battle, while Mace is retrieving his lightsaber, why doesn't Jango just shoot him there while he's disarmed and steady, instead of trying to steal it?
Answer: Because Mace Windu is a Jedi and if he gets his lightsaber he'll be able to deflect Jango's blaster shots with ease. If Jango is able to grab the lightsaber before Mace can get it, then he stands a much better chance of winning.
But if he shoots him before he got his lightsaber he can't deflect the shot.
Not saying it was either smart or prudent, but that was obviously his thinking. In his mind if he grabs that lightsaber before Windu can get it he's won.
Villains in movies don't have a lot of logic.
27th Dec 2019
Watchmen (2009)
Plot hole: Although this film is a virtual jigsaw puzzle of flashbacks, the dynamic between Dan, Laurie and Rorschach pretty much defines the movie's continuity in the present. However, when Rorschach is framed for murder and arrested, he goes directly to a maximum-security prison, apparently without trial, conviction or sentencing (all of which would require months of due-process, at least). Even if this lapse of time is some sort of artistic device to rapidly advance Rorschach's story, there is no corresponding lapse of months in the relationship between Dan and Laurie, which runs parallel with Rorschach's story. Either there is no due process for Rorschach in this story, or there is a glaring plot hole.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Rorschach was a famous and dangerous outlaw. We are talking about an alternate 80's here with Nixon as president and a nation-wide ban on masks (the Keene Act). Rorschach probably faced the death penalty for his long list of crimes, besides the murder he was finally captured for (not to mention to handful of cops he seriously injured whilst trying to evade capture). I don't think it's strange that his trial was quick or not fully by the book. They made sure he was locked away fast and quietly. The justice system probably works a lot faster in a world of masked vigilantes.
Yes, Rorschach was a vigilante; but, before masked superheroes were outlawed, Rorschach was also responsible for sending dozens (if not scores) of far worse criminals to prison, thus benefitting society. This much is stated in the film. His contributions to justice would certainly carry weight, and testimony in his favor would have to be considered in any legal proceedings against him. Also, after his capture, authorities were still trying to assess his mental state, which implies that some sort of due-process was still in place. Rorschach should have received a months-long trial, at the very least.
To be fair, the original, Hugo Award-winning "Watchmen" graphic novel makes the same continuity leap when it comes to Rorschach's fate. Rorschach keeps a secret diary that dates everything, but it egregiously skips over his trial and sentencing, even though the relationship between Dan and Laurie remains consistent. So, we can say that the movie is faithful to the novel, but the novel itself is flawed with a gaping plot hole.
The cops of that city don't care about his past deeds, which includes dropping the body of a criminal in front of the police station with the message "Never." They don't like him. Not even his colleagues liked him. That was a long time ago too, he's been the sole masked vigilante for a long time and I bet the cops just started disliking him more and more for his antics. Thus, a quick trial.
11th Dec 2019
Batman and Robin (1997)
Question: How does Ivy get Nora's snowflake necklace without getting her costume soaked in the cyro fluid or whatever it is?
Answer: Maybe she drained the cryo-tube first? Maybe she did get wet but had dried off by the time we see her again? Maybe Bane did it for her? Pick whatever answer works best for you. It's a really small, insignificant detail in the film with plenty of potential answers.
Answer: She most likely used her mind control potion on someone and had them do it for her.
27th Nov 2018
Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005)
Question: Is Mace Windu more powerful than Yoda, considering he did defeat emperor Palpatine, which Yoda couldn't do?
Answer: Mace didn't actually defeat Palpatine. Palpatine was putting on a show for Anakin to gain sympathy and try to force Anakin's hand into turning on Mace to further propel him down the path of the Dark Side with no hope of return. At any point, Palpatine could have easily turned the tables on Mace and took him out, but he knew Anakin was coming. That's why he dispatched the other 3 Jedi so quickly so that they wouldn't be in the way, and knew that Mace would have the most impact on Anakin having the Jedi turn on the Master.
But Mace defeats Sidious fair and square.
Palpatine made it look that way. Because he knew Anakin was coming and wanted to see him in that predicament to gain more sympathy from him to act against Mace. Palpatine threw the fight, took a dive.
Regardless, What I'm asking is Mace stronger than Yoda consdiering that he defeats the Emperor regardless when Anakin intervened.
No, he is not stronger. Yoda's highly force sensitive blood is even mentioned in Episode 1 when they discover Anakin's blood. That "No Jedi has a count that high, not even master Yoda." Yoda is over 800 years old and a long time student of the Force, and of his species. Not to mention he even has such a high count in his blood in such a small body. Mace is basically just human.
Pretty much similar as to if Anakin is stronger than Yoda considering he beats Darth Tyranus. But in reality, Yoda is stronger than Anakin or Mace Windu.
I wouldn't say Yoda is stronger than Anakin... just far more experienced. Again, he's had 800 years to study and master the Force and expand upon himself. Anakin is still learning and only in his 20's. Also after his limbs are cut off and replaced by the mechanical parts when he becomes Vader, he's actually a lot weaker than he was since he lost so much of his precious blood.
I think Mace was closer to winning and had a great chance had Palpatine not devised his being weak plan as an afterthought after Anakin shows up while he doesn't have his lightsaber anymore.
It wasn't an afterthought. He was manipulating the situation from the get go, having the entire thing planned out and staged ready for the perfect timing of Anakin to walk in.
Sidious didn't plan on Anakin walking in right before he was killed. That would have been too close. He planned on beating the Jedi Masters and use their bodies as proof that the Jedi are traitors. That would have been enough for the council and Anakin. You have to understand that Mace Windu is the most skilled lightsaber duelist of all Jedi, far superior to Yoda. There is no way Sidious could have beaten him. Yoda on the other hand is the best force user of all Jedi, superior to even Luke. All in all Yoda is the most powerful Jedi that ever lived. Anakin Skywalker, especially after joining the dark side, the second most powerful. The fact his body was broken didn't weaken him, it only made him stronger. The reason Yoda didn't beat Tyranus or Sidious is because he is too compassionate, and getting older. Tyranus used that against him and Sidious, well, he just got lucky I think and Yoda gave up too quick. No sith besides Vader has surpassed Windu, Yoda or Obi-Wan.
4th Feb 2004
Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (2001)
Question: When Harry's parents are shown in the mirror, are they supposed to be the age that they were when they died or the age they would be if they were still alive?
Chosen answer: Since the mirror is reflecting Harry's desire, they are probably an idealized (to Harry) image of what they would look like if they were still alive.
Answer: He didn't just desire his parents but a whole family. Therefore he saw his entire family.
In the novel he saw his whole family. In the movie, he only saw his parents.
11th Jul 2019
Avengers: Endgame (2019)
Question: Did Professor Hulk bring back the original Infinity Stones with the Blip?
Answer: No, his snap simply restored all the people Thanos' snap eliminated. They discuss it before he snaps. Tony reminds him to not try to do anything other than bring the people back.
We don't know that's all he did. Considering the Ancient One's warning that removing a stone for one's universe could have disastrous affects on that universe. One would think he would return the stones.
She was talking about removing them from the timeline, nothing about destroying them. According to the comics when the stones are destroyed the powers they represent will be made physical again in a different way. This does not happen when they are removed completely, since the power inside (the energy) cannot be reassembled again.
Destroying the stones almost killed Thanos. Hulk would not have been able to bring back half the universe and the stones with no further impact.
We do know. As stated in the answer, Tony and Hulk specifically discuss ONLY bringing the people back. Since it's stated in the film, we can say with certainty that's all he did.
As stated in the film, he also tried to bring Natasha back who wasn't one of the half Thanos snapped away, so while unlikely, perhaps he did try more.
17th Dec 2019
Star Wars: The Last Jedi (2017)
Stupidity: The entire plot revolves around the First Order chasing the ships, waiting for the Resistance to run out of fuel. They could have easily destroyed the Resistance's fleet by sending a Star Destroyer or two around to cut them off from the other side and blast them into oblivion.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Maybe. But if the First Order does this the entire plot of the movie as it is is ruined. So, maybe both?
Just because you didn't like the movie doesn't change a character stupidity into a plot hole.
What prevents a character's stupidity from being a plot hole? Is it wrong to want competent villains? If a character is supposed to be intelligent (let's say, a naval commander or military leader) and has the capability to achieve his or her objective with an obvious decision a character of his or her stature should make but does not and it is the only reason the plot of the movie still exist, is it not both a plot hole and character stupidity? Not just Hux, Snoke, Kylo, and every other First Order officer failed to realise this. How? It does not make any sense. At the very least try to explain in the movie how the FO let the Resistance get away because they refused to let Star Destroyer make a few hyperspace jumps and cut the Resistance off.
Hux is an idiot, Snoke is a fraud and Kylo doesn't really strike me as a strategic mastermind.
Hux only really becomes an idiot because of this movie. In TFA, he is an established military officer who does come across as more feared and respected. The change in this movie is then character stupidity and/or a character mistake that creates a big plot hole from the start.
Well the new movie puts a whole new light into that. Changes the whole discussion.
So they retconned to correct this mistake? Still makes it a mistake in my opinion. Especially since it is not just Hux who could have been a better leader. Any FO military officer could have brought it up and executed that idea.
In the time it takes to switch the hyperdrive on and off again, travelling at light speed you would travel so far ahead of them you would take days to get back to them. In a quarter of a second at lightspeed you travel much farther than the length of the planet Earth.
To answer the question: a plot hole is something that contradicts something already established in the film that's done to move the plot along or resolve an issue. A stupidity is a minor plot hole, but can also be character acting contradictory to what's been established, usually to keep the plot going. A character mistake is a character making a mistake or error they shouldn't have (usually because the writers don't know the right answer). Characters acting stupid or irrationally or making human errors is not a valid movie mistake.
So by this, it is a plot hole because the Star Destroyers can jump in and out of hyperspace and could make that jump to cut the Resistance off. It is character stupidity because Hux is established as a high ranking military officer in TFA and thus should know basic military strategy along with all of his fellow officers. I think if a character acts stupid which goes against their established personality and traits without a good reason, it is very much a mistake. Hux was not pressured into an irrational decision. In fact, it is the most calming battle to ever take place in Star Wars. There is no reason for him to be this incompetent. He is only this way because Rian wrote him this way, which on your list is a character mistake too. When the general audience is a better military tactician than the FO Commander in the movie, it is a bad sign.
The problem is that we as the audience know the Resistance will find a way out of this situation. General Hux believes he has the Resistance trapped and they have no escape. In his mind, the plan was working perfectly well. There's no reason to alter the plan. It's not like they are under a time crunch and need to destroy the ships as quickly as possible. By moving the cruisers out of range and crawling away, it was clear to Hux that the Resistance had run out of options. Hux doesn't need to do anything differently in his mind, so he doesn't. It only seems stupid to us because we know the heroes will find a way out because heroes always do.
I am sure the First Order is well aware that the Resistance is doing all they can to find an escape, however unlikely it is. However, contrary to the audience, they do not know how they plan on doing so. All the more reason for the First Order to blow the Resistance to bits while they still can. What is the benefit of just waiting for the Resistance to run out of fuel in the first place? Wouldn't it just be better to end them swiftly? Also, it is not just Hux. There are other military officers and you would think there would be a few of them who would want to destroy the Resistance while the opportunity was present. Its decisions like these that make you wonder how the First Order gained so much power in the first place.
It is just Hux. The captain of the Dreadnaught makes it clear that Hux is in general command, as he is irritated that Hux did not scramble fighters as soon as Poe's X-Wing showed up. Overconfidence has been a staple of Star Wars villains from the very beginning, and if it's a movie mistake here then it's also a mistake that Tarkin doesn't evacuate the Death Star; or that Vader doesn't force choke Luke on Bespin instead of trying to trap him in carbonite; or that Jaba doesn't shoot Luke Skywalker instead of taking him to the Sarlaac pit; etc.
Comparing Tarkin's overconfidence to Hux's actions is practically insulting. The Empire believed the Death Star was indestructible until the flaw was discovered during the Rebels' attack run. Even with this flaw, the chances of the Rebels' success was incredibly slim. The Rebels have already failed multiple times and the Empire was mere seconds away from ending the Rebellion for good. The probability of the Empire ending the Rebels once and for all was almost a certainty and it was logical to take the chance. Tarkin may have been overconfident, but he had a right to be. The Vader example is dumb too. The Emperor ordered Luke to be taken to him alive. To do that, they were going to entrap him in carbonite. That was Vader's goal, not to kill him with a Force choke. Jabba is a sadistic showman, as seen when he fed Oola to the Rancor. When Luke is captured, he created a show in which he can enjoy. How Luke died was just as important to him as Luke dying.
Tarkin said he wanted to destroy the Rebellion with one swift stroke. Key word here being swift, not lazily waiting for some gas just to run out. If Tarkin was in charge of the First Order instead of Hux, the Resistance would have easily been destroyed, no questions asked. Having Hux betray what he was supposed to be from TFA by being a passive, ignorant, and incompetent leader causes the FO to be nonthreatening, terrible villains, and defeats any suspense in the plot. It's illogical for the audience to believe that a military commander could be this stupid.
Completely and entirely disagree with your assessment. Tarkin's overconfidence and Hux's overconfidence both come from the same belief: that their enemies have no means of victory. Both men believe they have already won and it is only a matter of time before they win. Tarkin is flat out told that there is a chance that the rebels will destroy them and he chooses not to evacuate. This overconfidence is a staple of every movie in this series because the major theme of an underdog triumphing over the odds demands this. I did not mean that Vader should force choke Luke to death, but once the plan to freeze him fails he certainly could have tried harder to incapacitate Luke. By not doing so he allows Luke to escape. This isn't dumb, it's just overconfident. Jabba choosing to put on a show rather than just shooting his enemies is the very definition of overconfidence, and it's honestly strange that you seem to be arguing that it isn't.
I was arguing against your assessment of Vader and Tarkin and explaining Jabba's view and how it differs from how Tarkin and Hux should go about things. Jabba is an overconfident crimelord and thus has different traits then a military leader so it is unjust to compare him to Tarkin and Hux. Tarkin was given that information mid battle a mere minute away from wiping out of the Rebellion. Here it is believable of him to assess the situation, see the Rebels have already failed multiple attempts, and that the Rebels chance for success was minuscule and waiting was the best option. Hux's ability to end the war is literally right there. Not minutes away, seconds away if he would have just commanded a ship to cut them off. There is no benefit in waiting, whereas Tarkin is operating a Death Star and must wait as it moves differently (slower, less maneuverable) than a Star Destroyer. Even if they have the same belief, Tarkin acts competently and Hux acts unbelievably moronic.
I think that's where I'm having a problem with your statements. I don't believe that Hux acted "unbelievably moronic." His plan was working perfectly fine. Just because he didn't wipe out of the ships as fast as he possibly could doesn't make him a moron, or a bad military leader. Hux had just lost Starkiller Base and his Dreadnaught, so it is perfectly reasonable for him to take a safe approach with destroying the remaining Rebel ships; picking them off one-by-one at no risk to his fleet whatsoever. His plan works absolutely fine and the few Rebels that do survive only do because Luke Skywalker projects his image across space to stall Kylo Ren. "Military leader" doesn't mean "infallable" and it certainly isn't a gap in the film's logic, especially in the Star Wars series, to have a leader make questionable decisions in hindsight.
You just said Hux was an extremely risk adverse military leader, whereas good military leaders must deliberately accept tactical risks. However, there is no risk here. Destroying the Resistance fleet would have been easy since all of their fighters and bombers were already destroyed fighting the Dreadnaught. Regular sight should have been able to see that waiting for the Resistance to think up an escape plan was a bad idea. Especially since the First Order knows the Resistance has a map to Luke Skywalker and his arrival could completely turn the tide of the battle. Logically, the First Order should destroy the Resistance fleet before Luke could arrive. The only explanation, which makes for a bad movie, is that Hux is unlike what he was represented in TFA and is an incompetent leader. From the beginning, he was never meant to be like is TFA self. He did fall for a "your mama" joke to start the movie and let a Dreadnaught die from the slowest bombers in the galaxy.
I did not say that Hux was "extremely risk averse." I said that Hux took a safe approach. Having Hux plan to defeat the Rebels before Luke Skywalker could show up would have also been out of character. The villains in the Star Wars stories consistently believe that not even a powerful Jedi could stop their plans when they have convinced themselves they've already won. Snoke says as much during this very film.
You said Hux likes playing it safe, that means he is a risk adverse military leader, or at least made a risk adverse decision when there didn't need to be one. So it is now out of character for Hux to defeat the Resistance until Luke shows up? At this point, the only reason it makes sense for Hux to act this way is what was revealed in TRoS, which would be a retcon to cover the mistake in this movie. I find your villain statement more of opinion then truth. It may only make sense in this trilogy. Palpatine is the true villain of Star Wars and his big plan to rule the galaxy found it necessary to kill all the powerful Jedi, so he obviously was not convinced he could win with them alive. As Emperor, discovering a potential Jedi in Luke was treated like an actual threat, maybe the only true threat. The Emperor wants Luke dead/capture in ESB. The Emperor tries to turn Luke in RotJ. The Emperor does believe he can turn/defeat Luke, and he would have defeated him if Vader hadn't intervened.
You are putting words in my mouth. I never said that Hux "likes playing it safe." I said that he took a safe approach in this particular situation.
I'm gonna say it here too, the new movie puts it all in a whole new light. So just wait till you see it. (not that it's particularly good though).
We do not know exactly when this character decided to do that. Could have been before or after these events. Most likely it occurred after Snoke died and Kylo took power. So that is just speculation. If this character's decision does occur before the events of this movie, then it is a retcon to cover this mistake, meaning the mistake exists.
Exactly. This movie's plot is very flawed and it lacks logic to the big extent. Hux was much more competent in TFA, so his behavior in TLJ was both stupidity and a plothole.
Then they should have written a better plot. Complaining that rational act ruins the plot is a writing issue with the plot. They shouldn't have written this problem in the first place. You can't hide behind the "but it will ruin the film" excuse when the writers could have written literally anything else.
Suggested correction: In the time it takes to switch the hyperdrive on and off they would have travelled so far in front of the rebels that they would be worse off than before. Even switching the drive in for .25 of a second would carry them around 400,000 kilometers if my memory serves. This is still a plot hole. The first order ships are bigger, therefore they should be faster due to larger/ more engines and the "fuel" issue is wrong because all you have to do is switch off your engine and you will not stop.
Suggested correction: Why would they need to? They easily outgun what remains of the Resistance, and they're patient enough to wait for the ships to run out of fuel. The First Order was overconfident, but they were not wrong about their plan working.
What is the benefit of the First Order waiting? It would be better to take out your enemy swiftly when given the chance. Especially since we are told this is the last of the Resistance. Destroying these few ships would then end the war and give the First Order control of the galaxy.
9th May 2009
X-Men Origins: Wolverine (2009)
Corrected entry: It is stated that the only thing which will penetrate Logan's adamantium skeleton is an adamantium bullet. Following this logic, Logan's adamantium claws should cut through Deadpool's arm blades, or vice versa.
Correction: A bullet traveling at high speeds would behave very differently than a blade, even of the same material.
Quite correct. A lead (soft) bullet will penetrate a steel (hard) plate due to its velocity. The same applies here.
Actually it's not about something softer vs something hard. Adamantium is quite indestructible even when matched against each other. But an adamantium bullet can dent an adamantium plate at least. Of course the true nature of the adamantium in the movies is not as elaborate as the comics (certainly not the origins), but I think the basic features still apply, that it is steel with an extremely high density and thus indestructible even when it's adamantium versus adamantium. This can even include Silver Samurai's adamantium in the later movie which is obviously of higher quality.
I was trying to make the point that a bullet can penetrate something as hard or harder than itself due to its velocity.
Correction: We can assume that as Weapon X has the same healing abilities as Logan, his blades are adamantium too.
9th Dec 2019
Star Wars: The Last Jedi (2017)
Plot hole: By having Admiral Holdo perform her infamous hyperspace ramming stunt, Rian Johnson created a continuity problem with the rest of the Star Wars universe. Since this maneuver was successful, every space battle before and since should only include a droid piloting spacecraft ramming enemy bases through hyperspace. This tactic would have been more cost effective and less risky than full on space battles seen in previous films. This tactic would no doubt have been tried in a universe filled with space battles often with disposable troops on both sides, such as in the Clone Wars. The Death Star did not need a successful trench run to be destroyed, just an X-wing with a droid ramming it at hyperspeed.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: I think it's a one in a million shot. The damaged caused crippled the large ship but didn't fully destroy it and the other ships destroyed were caused by the debris from the bigger ship and ramming ship. That's just bad tactics. But in the case of for example the death star I doubt highly that ramming it with hyperspace jumps will cause significant damage. It's not like you are firing an armor piercing round and I'm pretty sure ships are equipped with all sorts of anti-debris protection. Plus I think it's bloody difficult even at that range to aim correctly at an enemy ship with a hyperjump.
NASA engineers have to be aware of space debris orbiting the Earth that is the size of small particles because when they are orbiting at 18,000 mph around the Earth, they can cause significant damage to spacecraft. Turn that speed up to near or past the speed of light as in hyperspace and an X-wing should be enough to significantly cripple a Death Star sized object, if not completely destroy it. Yes, ships have shields, but these are ray shields meant for cannon fire. Both RotJ and TFA show that a ship can penetrate these shields (TFA displayed it at hyperspace speeds no less). Aiming should be as easy as punching the location into a navicomputer as done for traveling. It is also easier to hit and less difficult to aim at large or close objects, like Star Destroyers, Death Stars, or planets and moons.
"The damage caused crippled the large ship but didn't fully destroy it" This is what was introduced to the fiction by the director. You can dislike that if you'd like but it is not a "mistake."
This was the outcome. Hyperspace ramming was what was introduced. The outcome was also grander than simply crippling a ship. It split the ship in two and the entire fleet or a large portion of it ended up being destroyed. Without a worthwhile explanation as to how this is possible now but not previously, it also introduces plot wholes in the previous movies.
You are talking about a long time ago in a galaxy far far away. You simply don't know. Hypespace is not as simple as going faster than the speed of light. They hardly have shields, I'm talking about armor protection, bulkheads, bulges, space armor, netting. Whatever.
Hyperspace as defined by Wookiepedia is an alternate dimension that could only be reached by traveling at or faster than the speed of light. So at this stage in the ramming stunt, it is as simple as traveling at or past light speeds as the ship has not yet entered the hyperspace lanes in the parallel dimension. So now the force the FO ship faces is the mass times acceleration and since it is traveling past lightspeed, the force would be extraordinary regardless of the mass. It would be even harder to believe an armor or anything else that could withstand that force, even on a Death Star sized space station.
To clarify, this is the hyperspace that Rian Johnson created. Before it was less clear, but the standard that has been followed since the beginning was one could not ram opposing ships with it while entering hyperspace lanes. Han Solo talks about this in A New Hope. Rogue One even has ships just entering hyperspace killing themselves on incoming Star Destroyers. This is the more faithful representation of what hyperspace travel was. Rian Johnson has completely rewritten what occurs in hyperspace which breaks Star Wars canon.
The official explanation is that the Raddus had special experimental deflector shields and that is why it worked. With normal shields it would not have worked.
Source? Is it said in the movie somewhere? So one should expect the Resistance to use these "special experimental deflector shields" and hyperspace ramming to combat the hundreds of Star Destroyers in The Rise of Skywalker, correct? Should be pretty effective. Weird that all the promos have the Resistance fighting them the old-fashioned way.
It is in the novelization of the movie.
Using a novel to correct a mistake a movie makes still makes it a movie mistake. Movies should not need books, comics, or videos games to explain their obvious flaws.
All I was saying is that it was a one in a million shot and that doing it requires a lot more than simply pointing towards the enemy and activating hyperjump. If anyone can do it and it can destroy entire fleets, then everybody would do it. But they don't, so it's not that simple. Since that is a fact, it's not a plot hole.
That is why it creates a plot hole because the movie never presents it in a way that only this ship at this time in this way can do it. It comes across as anyone can do it so why didn't anyone else do it in the thousands of years that this universe has existed through the countless wars that have taken place? Saying it is not that simple is not a fact, its an opinion. I watched it and it looked pretty simple. It comes across as anyone can do it, so everyone should have been doing it, thus the plot hole.
This scene doesn't create a plot hole since, in the film, nothing was established to show this wouldn't work. Nor would it create a plot hole unless it was previously shown that unmanned ships were used as a regular tactic to destroy bigger ships. Plot holes are when something occurs that contradicts what the story itself (usually as a plot device to further the plot along or conclude the plot).
It coming across as simple doesn't make it simple. The simple fact of the matter is that this fictional universe works that way, in the other movies it hasn't happened so it's not simple. It's as simple as that. In any case it would be a plot hole in those movies, not this one. Look, if you want everything to be logical then these movies will be nothing but automated ships ramming into each other left and right and you still want the story to be told? I don't think so. So, you want to explain why they don't ram everything and you got it. Deal with it. Otherwise the fact they use hyperdrives is a plothole then as well.
In this fictional universe, hyperspace did not work as weapons until Rian Johnson changed hyperspace for this movie's plot convenience. In doing so, Rian broke the standard canon that each previous movie followed. This is why its a plot hole in this movie and creates a discontinuity for the entire saga. Everything does not have to be understood or compared to our real world, but each fictional universe has its own set of physical laws and rules that each form of media in that universe needs to follow. Hyperdrives are not plot holes because they existed since the beginning of Star Wars and have a certain set of standards they follow that are understood. Changing these laws without a logical or worthwhile explanation in the film is ultimately disrespectful to the source material. The very idea that you brought up in that this creates plot holes in all the previous films proves that this scene is a terrible addition to the saga.
Seems to me like you just dislike the scene. Thats fine and I can understand you feel its a continuity. But it is not a plot hole for the movie.
It is more of a continuity error that creates plot holes in the previous movies, so it could be labeled better. However, if we view Star Wars as one story like George Lucas did, then it would be a plot hole for Star Wars as a whole. If it was successful in explaining how they could do it now, but not a few years ago, then it would have been fine, more or less. It failed to do so making it a mistake, no matter how visually pleasing it was.
Hyperspace always worked as a weapon. Han explained years ago that is why they had to plot a course through hyperspace. So they would not hit anything. She meant to use it as a weapon, and succeeded. This is nothing new.
If it were a one in a million shot, then Hux would not have panicked and ordered the cruiser shot down immediately. Furthermore, the Resistance could have used their two escort ships, which were going to run out of fuel and be destroyed anyway, to try the same thing.
Doesn't the one in a million argument make Holdo a traitor that attempted to flee at the rebellion's darkest hour then? Your argument is nonsense.
It was a suicide run. It was a one in a million shot to take out the main vessel, but whatever she was going to do, she was going to die.
Suggested correction: Just because it worked on this occasion, doesn't mean it would always work. It also hadn't been attempted before. It's not a plot hole that they didn't destroy the Death Star like this, since nobody in the rebellion considered it.
But why did no-one in the Rebellion consider it? It was their most desperate hour. They were in similar desperation as the Resistance in The Last Jedi, if not more so. Their were similar desperate times in the Clone Wars when both sides had troops of disposable clones and droids. They did not consider trying it then? They were wars occurring before that and no-one thought about using hyperspace as a weapon? It is illogical to think that there was no-one in the history of that universe that would never even consider using hyperspace as a weapon. The reason it was not considered was before Rian Johnson rewrote it, hyperspace did not operate like that. Plain and simple. Rian Johnson rewrote how hyperspace works, creating a plot holes and discontinuities for the entire saga.
No one rewrote Hyperspace. It has always been like that.
9th Dec 2019
Joker (2019)
Corrected entry: A human being cannot survive inside a closed refrigerator for even one hour, let alone overnight. They would suffer from a lack of oxygen and die. "Refrigerator death" is a rare occurrence but has happened on several occasions when children accidentally lock themselves in a fridge or if someone purposefully traps an individual in one.
Correction: Clearly it didn't work for him as he tried to commit suicide but was alive the next day. Maybe he got cold feet and exited quite quickly. Since the scene cuts after he closes the door you can't know what happened.
Incorrect. We see the refrigerator fully closing. When he closes it, it's night and when it cuts to the next scene it's morning, therefore he was in overnight.
Sure it closed, but you can't see he was in it all night. You can force yourself out of such types of fridge, if you have to.
So long as there is no scene specifically showing him crawl out of said refrigerator at dawn, there is no proof - implied or otherwise - he was in there overnight. As the previous entry corrected earlier, there is no way of knowing exactly how long he was inside for, and he obviously survived up until the end credits so the entire point or duration is moot.
Correction: It is possible the fridge just simply didn't seal fully. They are a poor family and likely have broken down old appliances. The airtight seals around the door could have been damaged thus letting air get inside, albeit even if just a little.
The fridge did close. Watch the scene, we here and see the fridge closing fully, it was night when he entered and the scene cuts to morning of the next day where it's daytime, so he was in the fridge overnight.
A refrigerator that is on, like the Joker's, has a fan that circulates cold air. The air comes from somewhere. A running refrigerator is not a vacuum.
There is so much wrong with this statement. First, that's not how refrigerators work. Second, asphyxiation doesn't occur in a vacuum. The mistake isn't claiming the Joker was in a vacuum.
2nd Feb 2017
Alien Resurrection (1997)
Corrected entry: When climbing above the nesting grounds, one of the guys gets a dead, very heavy alien on his shoe. To save the crippled guys life and keep him climbing, he unhooks from the crippled guy and falls to his death. He didn't have to die, though. He could have just pushed it off with his other foot.
Correction: Christie was very badly injured from the acid that hit him. He was barely conscious and simply couldn't move his foot to get rid of the alien. It wasn't a certainty it would work either, Christie simply thought of the fastest and surest way for Vriess to be saved.
I always got the impression Christie was paralyzed from the waist down after he gets hit with the acid. It's a fitting way for him to die, because he saves Vriess who is also paralyzed in the same way.
How would he get paralyzed from the acid? It hit his face.
Went into his brain. I can't see him being too tired to move his leg but not too tired to un-snap his harness. Either way, it's a very poorly explained scene. Not saying I'm right and you're wrong, it's just the way I always read the scene when I watched the movie.
Right, right. I get where you are coming from. But let's be realistic, if the acid had gone in his brain he'd be dead. He just didn't have the strength left, not tired, just in and out of conscious. And again, it would have taken too long to try and get the alien off.
He won't necessarily be dead. Brain injuries are not all fatal, but can result in loss of different body functions.
Plot hole: In the shot where two of the pirates find Jack Sparrow in the prison, you see the moon shine out over Port Royal and the pirate's hand around Jack's neck is skeletal. While this is happening we know that Elizabeth is being led onto the Black Pearl by two pirates. If the pirate in the prison turns skeletal, why don't the pirates with Elizabeth turn skeletal? It's clear that they don't as Elizabeth only discovers the curse later on aboard the Black Pearl.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: This can be explained that on the route from Elizabeth's house to the ship there is a lot of fog, smoke from fires and gunpowder explosions, so the moon doesn't get through. The moon only get through once they are underway again and the fog is cleared. The prison is much further and higher than the town and so the moon does get through (only sometimes) there.
You're very much mistaken. In later scene pirates turn skeletal when marching underwater, at the bottom of the ocean. Moon is easily able to get through water and this smoke isn't thick enough to block the moon.
How does water compare to fog? Of course the moonlight comes through the water, its transparent. Fog isn't transparent. You can go technical and question how much the moonlight is reflected away before the effect wears off, but obviously the effect wears off when there is no direct moonlight hitting them, as is the case with fog and smoke.
5th Jul 2005
Toy Story (1995)
Trivia: The carpet design used in Sid's house is the same design used in the hotel featured in The Shining (1980). (00:48:55 - 00:50:10)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
The design is spot on. The color is just different.
So it is identical, except for how it is different?
No one said it was identical. The trivia is the pattern is the same. Color has no bearing on the trivial fact. The fact that they animated the carpet means the design was intentional. Although, it's possible they copied the design from a 70's carpet pattern that "The Shining" also used, rather than copy the design in "The Shining."
11th Oct 2019
Joker (2019)
Corrected entry: Joker's left eye make up changes shape (blue messy cry smear) and size before going on the show, then is very neat on the show, and then jumps back to being smaller with the left eye crying look in the police car.
Correction: The changes are shown in between takes with a large time gap. Before going on the show he had redone his makeup and after the show he cried again smearing the makeup again when he is in the cop car.
There is a scene he is lying at the car engine, next scene he stand up, between these two scene the blue paint is dry and different.
Well firstly, no, he bleeds so that's different but the blue paint stays the same. Can't blame him for sweating either. And secondly, the original mistake doesn't talk about the scene on top of the car but in it.
Join the mailing list
Separate from membership, this is to get updates about mistakes in recent releases. Addresses are not passed on to any third party, and are used solely for direct communication from this site. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Check out the mistake & trivia books, on Kindle and in paperback.
Answer: I only know that they wasn't Ash's Pikachu because he is very powerful. I don't think it was ever said as to what Giovanni would do with Pikachu though. He may want the Pokémon for its powers kind of like how he had Mewtwo and used the armour to help him control his powers.